The courts are called upon to make difficult decisions touching on all aspects of our human existence but the most profoundly difficult decisions are in those tragic cases where a child is in hospital with an incurable condition.

I had to do the 'it's not my job to believe you' talk to a client recently. I thought it might be a useful topic to discuss on the blog, because it is so often a source of worry and confusion for people unfamiliar with taking advice from a barrister.

A report on Open Justice from the Chartered Institute of Journalists warns of “an unprecedented, and sustained, attack on the journalism profession, which has taken a toll on our ability to cover courts, and report on their function”.

In the so-called “meal ticket for life” appeal case of Waggott v Waggott, Kim Waggott, the former wife of William Waggott, lost her joint lives maintenance award and the court rejected the argument that earning capacity is a resource subject to the sharing principle upon the breakdown of marriage.

It’s one of the cardinal rules of court procedure: once you’ve entered the witness box and started to give evidence, you mustn’t discuss the case with anyone outside court, if there’s a break in the proceedings, until you’ve finished giving evidence.

The Telegraph is one of a number of newspapers to report on the decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse the appeal of Mrs Waggott asking for an increase in her divorce award, and to allow the appeal of Mr Waggot, asking for the duration of her maintenance award to be limited.

In January 2018, the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, issued his 18th View from the President’s Chambers, dealing with the launch of the Financial Remedy Court (FRC) pilots and the proposed structure and geography of the FRC.

What are a person’s best interests in a decision to permit use of samples of body fluids or tissue for a purpose which is neither of direct therapeutic benefit to the person him or herself, or an act of direct altruism towards another person?

Recorder Cusworth has delivered three judgments in this case – although they go back as far as the start of last year, they were only published at the end of the case, once the judge had comprehensively set out all of the lies and frauds that had been exposed and explained why he could not believe a word that Mr Bloom said .